Boards›Story, Art, & Sound

The Triad of Badassery

Wrathof300··4 votes·953 views

A lot of you may be more familiar with the wanna be Dark Trinity Fiddlesticks Shaco Nocturne, today I present the Triad of Badassery Gangplank Darius Pantheon.

Gangplank the Saltwater Scourge and former Pirate King of Bilgewater. “I was cutting throats and sinking Noxian war galleys when you were still pissing your britches, boy. You don’t want to take me on.” ~ Gangplank He had his time to shine during the Burning Tides event when he was reworked, he carved intricate art pieces into the bones of his prisoners, when their flesh rots the bones of these dead men will tell tales. When MF blew up his ship and his crew, he survived, and upon finding that his left was useless, he forced a surgeon to cut off his arm. That ship MF blew up, Swain's prized warship the Leviathan, he even once ransacked the Temple of the Jagged blade enraging the Order of the Shadow. GP is a man that fears none.

Darius the Hand of Noxus and Leader of the Trifarian Legion. “History only remembers the victors. Stand with Noxus, and be remembered forever.” ~ Darius Darius has gotten a lot of love the past couple of months, his short animation 'Fear' exploring Darius' time waging war against the Freljord where a pack of wolves back off from attacking him based on their predatorial instinct, and a multitude of badass displays on the filed from beheading his coward superior and taking charge of the retreating warbands to surviving capture by the Winter's Claw. Most recently in 'The Principles of Strength', his entire air contrasts so well with Swain, you see why he was chosen to be a part of the Trifarix and the Legionnaires who are so well trained and badass themselves, they are practically an extension of Darius' character.

Riot has done an amazing job with these guys especially Darius who they made much more human with his comic, while portraying him as badass in other stuff.

Somehow, the man was still alive, despite the ragged wound in his leg, the skin and flesh peeled back from his thighbone. Transfixed with horror, the lad saw the intricate designs the captain had carved upon that bone; coiling tentacles and waves. It was delicate work, beautiful even. That just made it even more terrible. Gangplank’s living canvas sobbed.

When I read this I was afraid, I felt the fear this boy probably did.

“We are proud, my lord,” said Alyssa. “I am no lord. Especially not yours.” Swain smiled, raising his hand. “What he means to say is—in Noxus, no man or woman is born superior to another. It is not by bloodline that one earns their place, but by their deeds.”

When Swain smiled, I couldn't help but smile myself.

Now the third member Pantheon The Artisan of War and the Aspect of War (100% unbiased opinion :P). The reason being, Panth was one of the original champions that was just a human and competing with Legends in the old lore, and something in the tone of these 3 characters whether or not they directly state it, they make all those around them seem inferior. Now Panth has a new lore and he is now a 'demi-god... of sorts' and while that human aspect he shared with GP and Darius is lost, his general disposition has remained relatively the same and I think a story similar to GP in 'Burning Tides' or Darius in 'The Principles of Strength' is what he really needs to fully solidify his place in the Triad. “Bring forth one true champion, or a hundred more like you, and then we shall have a battle that will be spoken of until the end of time.” ~ Pantheon

Honorable Mentions: Sejuani Urgot Aatrox Thanks for reading, if you think you know a Champion more badass than these guys (you're wrong and sadly mistaken) leave a comment, even if it's pure bias.

32 Comments

Chembaron Yamada5 votes

Urgot I mean, he came out of (stated by a Rioter) the worst prison in whole Runeterra. The leader of that prison (chembaroness Voss) was personally torturing him and he laughed.

Then he proceeded to take control of the prison, stole Chemtech augmentation from people who needed them to survive just to make his own body stronger and now he is hunting down the chembarons in control of Zaun. And he is collecting them in tubes at home.

Just like your first 2 examples, he was just a human.... But he became so much more.

"I am stronger than man, stronger than machine, I am an idea!"

Wrathof3001 votes

I'll admit a convincing pick here, I actually should have given him an honorable mention like Sejuani, amongst all of the Zaun champs Urgot is their Urgod and the badass of Zaun. Urgot enforces a lot of cruelty and preaches a lot... a lot, idk if its the fact he was made who he is because of the betrayal but he doesn't give off the same vibe as Darius or Gangplank. Although strictly speaking, by the term "badassery" he qualifies.

Warlord Dienekes2 votes

I agree with Darius and Gangplank, but I can't see how Pantheon warrants a placement on the list of badasses. Some magic space creature that takes actual badasses, enslaves them, and then replaces them when they die isn't badass, it's depressing.

Urgot, Garen, Tryndamere, Sejuani, Jax, Mordekaiser, Renekton, or even Trundle would be better for the final spot.

Wrathof3003 votes

You can't look at just one part of the character Pantheon is both Atreus and the Aspect of War. The way he carries himself and his focus of his duty to Targon, he has the potential. Admittedly this is an old trio from before his lore update based on humans that fought in the League, hence why I stated his character should be explored more as they have been killing it with other characters like him. I don't think the fact that he is the Aspect now should take away from what his old personality was like.

I added Urgot in the honorable mentions with Sej, going with the theme portrayed by Gangplank and Darius Urgot falls a little short in my personal opinion, Sejuani however I could see falling in really well. Trynd an Jax are impressive fighters but they don't carry themselves/ speak in a way that would derogate from others, not sayign that they can't (in Jax's case doing that would make his mission more difficult), pre-madness Renekton probably would measure up but right now he is riding on former glory. Garen's character is amazing and exactly what you'd expect from a knight, impressive but same as Trynd and Jax.

I'd have to see the Mordekaiser rework to believe it, right now, to me, he feels the same as Urgot, focused on cruelty and physical subjugation of others. There could be potential but this is my personal opinion atm.

Aatrox on the other hand has a ton of potential, he was a general among the Darkin and is referred to as the Darkin of War, he could go a route closer to either Darius or Urgot. Hopefully he leans more toward that Darius route.

By definition all of the characters you listed are badass in their own rights, but Gangplank and Darius come across in a way that the readers can feel the tension in the air just reading their scenes. Pantheon I think used to be one of these champions and has potential to continue being one of them.

Warlord Dienekes2 votes

I think we will always have a divide on what we find badass then. Because being haughty and belittling others isn't by itself badass to me. It's just being arrogant and superior. Badass (to me) is prowess, courage, putting yourself in the way of your own demise with nothing but your wits and weapons and taking it on. Which is why I will place Garen as higher than Pantheon on the badass scale, every time.

Garen, places himself in a position of weakness to a witch, and plays by her rules to save a life of someone he barely knows. Putting his life and his very mind at risk to do it. That he comes out victorious is badass. Maybe more than a little stupid. But badass. Pantheon risks nothing but another exposable body on the pile of dead hosts that must litter the galaxy by now. Atreus is a badass, that female that Sol blew up was probably a badass, but Pantheon? That thing controlling them? No, he's a coward.

Wrathof3002 votes

'Badass' is just someone that does something impressive, like I said all of the champions you stated are in their own ways. Darius and Gangplank are more than just arrogant and disdainful people, they do not necessarily carrying themselves boasting their superiority like Urgot, rather they make those around them seem inferior whether it be involuntary or direct. They back up this attitude with actual action, stealing from Noxus and the Order of the Shadow in Gp's case for example.

Again looking at only the Aspect of War in Atreus' body is looking at half of the picture, especially when we know so very little about it. The last Pantheon was afraid of her death at Aurelion's hands (can't blame her because there was no way she could survive that), I don't see this current version of Pantheon reacting the same way, meaning there should be something different now that Pantheon is in Atreus body. Personally I'd go with Warghbobo's description:

--From my understanding the Aspects merge with a person-- except for Pantheon-- he's a dick-- he only keeps your sense of duty and thirst for glory. (Shrug maybe that makes him the perfect warrior)

This would vary between Pantheons and other Aspects of War, their individual drive and motivations would make some more fearless than others and others more bloodthirsty than the rest. This would also make the Aspect more than just one person controlling tons of people but they would be closer to an ant colony, a flock of birds or a school of fish, capable of unison movement even though they are each their own individual, the essence of war simply acts as a medium to empower and connect these warriors.

This connects to the fact that Pantheon still has Atreus' lingering desire to protect Mount Targon. Pantheon met his enemies on desert sands long before they could touch the mountain soil, to protect his home he actively seeks out and kills those who would bring harm to his people. This makes him an active protagonist, which is a reverse on the role, as protagonists are usually reactive, this characteristic I think is 'badass'.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

That's one way to look at it. The other is it's the same Aspect and he's only now taking total control of his meatsuits because the old female Panth hesitated out of fear which allowed Sol to even kill her in the first place. Or, perhaps they act so differently because a different writer wrote each story and added tweaks to make Sol look more powerful in their story.

It's also debatable whether or not Atreus' desire is actually present. The lore directly says Atreus is gone. So we can take that as two things. 1) the lore is directly lying to us, which defeats the purpose of the lore, and you know, is just bad writing since the section is written as an omniscient narrator. 2) Pantheon has some other reason for wanting to kill things. In the short story, he mentions that the brigands were off to kill the Seer. Maybe the Seer is important to the Space Parasites plan in some way. Or at least the faction Pantheon is a part of.

Going back to what is a badass. You're right anything suitably impressive is badass. And some space god possessing a guy and slaughtering unpowered mooks isn't impressive. It's like watching Superman beat up some gang members. Sure he's powerful, but that's not badass that's just inevitable.

Wrathof3001 votes

Both of those are valid theories on the difference between Pantheons. Whether or not the lore is lying/ overly being vague in its description, we can only find out when Panth is reworked. It has been hinted that Atreus may return, while he should be gone, nothing states his return is impossible, the problem is how.

Regardless of the importance of the seer, the fact that Pantheon went out to meet the caravan instead of waiting for them to come to the Mountain, not even attacking them when they had set up a camp and had their guard down, he attacked them mid transportation, I'd consider this Atreus' will because there would be no other reason to go to such lengths. This act is what is badass about him. Dozens of other champions could have wrecked that caravan the same, but not many would have confronted them before hand.

Like superman it's inevitable Panth wins, but the difference is, Superman goes after them after they committed their crime, Panth kills them before they get the chance.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

What do lengths matter to a guy that can come streaking through the sky as a comet? What need of intelligence and tactics are there if you are so undermatched that the enemy can’t scratch you?

That could all just mean that the parasite felt like giving his meat suit a stretch of the legs. Or perhaps he just doesn’t think of any tactic beyond go up to enemy and murder them. Nothing we've seen Panth do has been particularly subtle.

And the mere existence of Zoe points to the fact we can’t expect the space parasites to actually utilize their abilities effectively or be intelligent in their actions. Or hell, maybe Pantheon just walked up to the caravan because the writer thought it was cool and didn’t give it a more thorough analysis. Truth be told nothing Riot has written makes me think they have much grasp of tactics and subtlety. Closest we got was Miss Fortune, and that involved giant ass bombs.

Wrathof3002 votes

The enemy not being able to scratch Panth is not due to him being an invincible tank, rather due to his skill and proficiency on the battlefield. In that particular story any other fighter champion, Xin Zhao, Jax, Lee Sin, Master Yi, Yasuo, could replace Pantheon and the outcome would be the same, he does nothing particularly god-like that would instantly secure his victory. He doesn't hold his chest bare and let the bullet bounce off of him (I doubt he could), so the story boils back down how the confrontation occurred. Pantheon actively seeking out the enemy. Pantheon is no assasssin, outside of how many he is against, the terrain of the battlefield and weapons available to each side, there is not much to consider but kill your way to the enemy leader afterward.

Whether you want to think of it as Atreus' will to seek out Mt Targon's enemies/ the Aspect of War being incapable of strategy/ the author just writing a cool fight scene. The fact is Pantheon being a proactive protagonist is in the nature of his character. Similarly how some characters may never be as analytical as others, for example Olaf, who's goal is purely to charge at the most dangerous thing in front of him and die.

The Aspect of Twilight's intentional lack of responsibility does not equal a lack on intellect and you cannot classify the pantheon of Aspects based on their Trickster. That would be like calling the Norse pantheon a bunch of backstabbing cowards because Loki is, or any other pantheon and their trickster god.

The giant ass bombs served a purpose, she wanted everyone to see how, when and where she 'killed' GP. She probably could have implored other methods that would have guaranteed GP's death, but chose the bombs because of the person she was.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

Dude’s powered by space magic to make him physically perfect. Whether that space magic makes him bulletproof or just better than everyone is irrelevant. He still just instant wins.

And even if by some miracle someone kills the host body. It doesn’t actually matter to Pantheon himself. He can just grab a new body to infest. No risk, no challenge, and no consequence. That he goes and does his job doesn’t make him more interesting than anyone else who does. To go back to Garen he was actively defending the frontier of his home as well. Giving him the exact same proactivity you’re giving Pantheon. While also finding time to save people and he actually risks something to do it.

You are right. I cannot call the Norse Pantheon sneaky backstabbers because Loki is one. But what I can do is say they’re all idiotic for not realizing that Loki was trouble after admitting to killing Baldir while drunk and not imprisoning him before he could mess up the resurrection. Or when they just leave him to escape their prison when they could just kill him. Idiotic. Much like the space parasites handling of the power at their disposal with Zoe.

The giant ass bombs did serve a purpose which is why it ranks as the most clever tactical thing any champ has done. Doesn’t change that the most cunning plan thus far was “blow my enemy up!” But that’s all part of why I like MF.

Another suitable replacement for badass by the way. She’s proactive out the wazzoo.

Wrathof3002 votes

Olaf's lore also makes him virtually invincible, but we still consider his actions irrational and dangerous because we don't know what could actually happen. Whether or not Panth is a god, anything could happen, speaking in general not specifically this scene (it is made clear these men weren't a match for Panth and as I mentioned I doubt it would have proved challenging for many other champs). Aurelion is the perfect example of unexpected circumstances taking a turn for the worse.

Again you're placing an extreme amount of emphasis on the Aspect side of Pantheon and not the whole, if all that mattered was that the Aspect had a worthy host. Atreus would have been the one Aurelion blew up and Riot would have reworked Panth to be the girl. There is significance to the fact that Atreus is currently the Aspect of War, similarly Garen, he could be written off as just another one of the Dauntless Vanguard but he is important because of his character and the interactions he has with the people around him: J4, Lux and Kat.

Garen and MF aren't proactive, MF's entire character is based on the fact that GP ruined her life, she didn't grow up a normal life and then decided GP needed to go. Not even her taking control of Bilgewater after she dethroned GP is proactive, she's dealing with the consequences of her actions as she threw the city into chaos. Garen is not proactive in all of his actions, his desire to train to become a suitable Crownguard - proactive; protecting the frontier town was not proactive, he was reacting to the chaos Noc was causing; taking down the Noxian encampment - reactive to J4's capture; Killing the rock hag - reactive to his soldier being captured.

Being reactive is not a bad or inferior quality it is simply the most common nature of the protagonist role. Atreus himself could be seen as somewhat reactive - only changing his mindset to a proactive one after the attack on the warriors in training.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

I'm placing an emphasis on the Aspect side of Pantheon because that's who Pantheon is. Pantheon is the thing that possesses hosts. It has completely taken over the body of someone who is not Pantheon, named Atreus. For the record, Atreus, while cool, probably would not have ranked highest in the badass scale anyway. Reading his lore before he got possessed is basically just him going through something that wasn't as bad as what Tryndamere went through with Aatrox. With the added detail that he was bullied as a kid. Which, you know, makes him more relatable, but not more badass.

That's not what proactive and reactive means. Actively working toward a goal based on your own desires is proactive. Yes, Miss Fortune has a motivation to go try and kill Gangplank. But she still takes an active role setting about that event where she topples the tyrant. You can make the same statement for Pantheon. Him going out to kill the bandits is predicated on the bandits coming to Targon to kill the Seer. They're both dealing with a situation placed before them. The difference between proactive versus reactive protagonist is the proactive one will set about their own goals. The entire Bilgewater event happens because Miss Fortune sets it up. She could have been just some girl that was screwed over by Gangplank, but she isn't. She takes charge.

Garen, likewise, does mix proactivity and reactivity as a protagonist. But him choosing to go out and protect the frontier, even before hearing about Nocturne's shenanigans is proactive. He is actively trying to do his part. Now we don't really see what difference he's making because that hasn't been a focus of any story so far. But he's out there on the wilderness making Demacia a safer place. The story with the Rock Hag is Garen being proactive. A reactive hero would be if the protagonist was that soldier that the Hag originally took. He didn't decide to take up the plot, he just had the plot happen to him. If Garen was minding his own business, then a rock hag popped out of nowhere and tried to eat his memories and Garen has to get out, that's reactive. Garen choosing to go deal with this witch is proactive. That's his mindset.

Which is the same mindset we have Pantheon having so far. He comes across a problem: bandits gonna kill a Seer. And walks over and murders them for it. In a less interesting and risky way.

Wrathof3002 votes

I disagree with you. While you make a good point with MF, having chosen to put an end to Gangplank instead of being just another one of his victims, I believe my point of her reacting to the tragedy in her life sands equally as strong. Yes, the proactive protagonist goes about attaining their goals, but after killing GP MF immediately goes back to being reactive as her goal was not to take the throne from him, she just ended up taking it as a mix of trying to fix the mess she made of Bilgewater and reaping her rewards. Same with her comic, she tries to be proactive by acting differently to GP, but ends up reactively acting exactly as he would when the other pirate captains turn on her. MF had an intricate and well thought out plan, but wasn't actually being proactive in implementing said plan, of course it is possible this is due to the difference in the amount of content between the 2, and Pantheon may become less proactive in future stories.

Garen however, goes to the frontier, because of the possibility of a mage as seen in his dialogue with Lux, his first inclination is that a mage might be involved and that is why they are there. Garen being proactive would have been him learning of Nocturne before hand and putting an end to him before he could have harmed the villagers. Similarly with the Rock Hag, Garen knew about her prior, due to rumors, yet he only confronts her after she captures one of his men. Had he set out and decided to end the Rock Hag prior to said incident then that would have been proactive.

While yes, the bandits intention is to kill the seer, they haven't even made it to Mountain soils when Pantheon confronts them, their crime is but an intention and they haven't interacted in anyway that would have warranted their deaths.

Atreus not being particularly extraordinary pre-climb, does not have zero effect/ take away from any effect he would have on the character, what is important is how he will make he 'proclaimed' return to the lore and the impact it will have. Like I said this trio was based on the old lore, and I think there is potential that he could be written to be badass in the standard's of Darius and GP. It's funny that you consider Atreus' story cool but not 'badass', as by the strict meaning of 'badass', Atreus rising above the challenges he faced growing up and climbing the Mountain and being chosen I think is just as impressive as you'd think of Garen throwing himself in the danger of the rock hag to rescue his soldier. Because both instances exemplify the kind of people the characters are, as well Panth's short story showing his conviction to protect the Mountain.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

That doesn't change the core story or the character's proactivity or reactivity. The only difference between Garen's actions as opposed to Pantheon's is that Pantheon can find it out that there is an invader before they get to the mountain while Garen can't. The fact Pantheon has magic does not make him more proactive. Both characters find out a villain is about to commit a crime. Pantheon finds out what the bandits were about to do because he has magic. If Garen could find out the witches plan beforehand he would have gone to confront her then. That's just a limit of the character's abilities not their influence on the narrative.

Your way of deciding what's proactive is based on borders which doesn't make sense in a storytelling perspective. The location of the event is irrelevant next to the motivations and actions taken to reach that event. Depending on the story and abilities of the characters. Going to the edge of your own settlement can be as proactive as going to the end of the galaxy depending on the scale of the story. If you're an agoraphobiac just getting to the outside of your house can be a proactive story if the impetus for trying to go outside is on the protagonist. Or it can be what's inside the nearest blackhole if you're in a scifi adventure. That doesn't actually matter to proactivity of the character. Pantheon and Garen are going through the same actions, only Panth has magic to figure out who to go kill first.

I didn't say I didn't think Atreus was badass. I said that Atreus's story is a less badass version of Tryndameres. They both were the sole or near sole survivors after being ambushed and wiped out by a superior force. The difference is Tryndamere lost his whole army and was up against a full on Darkin, while Atreus was up against a few bandits. Same basic premise and outline, Tryndamere's is just grander. Now, Atreus's story was better written (right up until that amazing emotional moment where his best friend dies in his lap is ruined by the heaven's opening up). But we're not discussing which story has better writing, we're talking about badassitude.

Wrathof3002 votes

You are right Pantheon did know of the bandits prior, likely because of the Seer, or possibly some other magic/ resource available to him. This is why I pointed out it is possible we see he him become less proactive in future stories. However Garen did know of the Rock Hag prior, the rumors, and he found her lair before she killed his soldier. Yet he did not intervene with her until this specific incident, that directly linked back to him.

The role of the protagonist is almost always reactive in nature, this would naturally limit characters in how proactive they are. To be proactive, you have to be knowledgeable of certain events, to act on them. For example Panth, if he can't tell who are his enemies then he can't really act. However Pantheon has the advantage because he is a roamer, after hearing of dangerous raiders or monsters he acts. Garen is part of a military force, somethings would call his attention away from situations where he could have been proactive, i.e. when J4 was captured and Garen was not there to help him.

Then you'd argue its their circumstance, but no, you have Leona living in the same region but instead of attacking the raiders, she waits for them at their next possible target, to defend the town. Yes, this is strategic to some extent but she is still being reactive in a situation where someone like Panth, would have been proactive.

Perhaps even if Panth was not a loaner, he would have lead his men into the enemy regardless. Whereas Garen, even when he finds the witch that abducted his soldier, and she attempts to steal his memories, he doesn't kill her until he senses her treachery. All while he could have walked in, killed her and left from the beginning and why, because he's Garen. His nature lets him be reactive even though he had every right to kill her the moment he set foot in the cave.

My connection to how out of the way Panth went to kill these men, was not to show that because one went an extra mile he is better. Rather the difference in mindset they had toward almost the same problem.

Poppy is a proactive character, and all she is doing, is looking for a person. However she is proactive because she is actively seeking out worthy persons and testing the hammer on them, opposed to Orlon, who probably keep the hammer and waited without actively searching. Their difference in mindset about 'finding the hero' lead to them to going about it in 2 different ways.

How proactive a character is/ can be, is determined by a combination of character and circumstance, as we previously established with MF who chose to stand up to GP and went on to become a bounty hunter and work her way up Bilgewater's food chain.

Of course now, I suppose this would make Garen and the Dauntless Vanguard's appearance at Frossbarrow proactive, assuming they came of their own violation and weren't sent/ requested by a higher authority.

So Tryndamere's story is more badass because his odds of winning were lower, however, Atreus' story does not end once at his supposed death. Rather, he wakes up beaten and numb and carries Pylas back to the village by himself. After completing his warrior training he attempts to climb the mountain, watching his fellow climbers die in all sorts of manner or give up on the climb, till once more, he alone remains. He is then bestowed/ cursed with godlike power as proof of his worthiness.

Yes, Tryndamere's story could probably be written to much deeper extent/ fleshed out more in the future. However, here you you ignoring the part where Atreus is granted his power because of your distaste for the lore retcon, favouring Trynd, who you probably see as an 'Atreus vs unknown otherworldly figure', opposed to Panth who became/ fused with that otherworldly figure. As I already established, badassery is just someone being impressive, and as you pointed out, it is then possible for persons to have different perspectives on what is 'badass'. So this concept of Trynd > Atreus doesn't really relate to the original post which was about the 'specific' type of badass portrayed by Darius and GP's attitudes, which was why you pointed out Garen's 'courageousness' as badass. Its just your bias, that because you dislike the Aspects you refuse to see them on a way, beneficial or interesting to the story. Where all I was trying to point out was that Atreus could have been seen just as brave as Garen. Tying back into the fact that Atreus is just as important to Pantheon's character as the Aspect currently is. I want to see Panth be as courageous and compassionate as Atreus is and I also want him to be ruthless and stubborn as the Aspect is, and as his VO portrays in game, still yet honourable.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

Alright, let's just go through what proactive means. Here's a clip from Brandon Sanderson, a famous fantasy author, where he teaches a class about developing protagonists. Specifically about them being proactive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE7ZtcDzzjI

A warning it is 12 minutes long, but you should watch it. Actually, everyone should watch his entire series it's amazing how it breaks down the key points of storytelling, how readers react to characters, it's just great.

So let's get the example he uses of a proactive protagonist. Han Solo and Darth Vader. Han Solo goes to dinner, sees Darth Vader immediately tries to kill Darth Vader. It should be noted that Han is, in essence, reacting to the appearance of Vader. If Vader wasn't there, Han would be off doing something totally different. He's still has a goal that he's trying to accomplish: fix the Falcon and get back to the Rebellion. But that is interrupted by Vader. Then Han takes the role of being proactive to a problem by trying to shoot it.

When discussing Leona and Pantheon. Neither is being more or less proactive in their scenario. They both learn about a problem, and they take steps to solve the problem. That one decides the best course of action is just go kill it themselves, while the other decides that the best course of action is to lay a trap and gather a small army of defenders. That doesn't matter. That's the details of their proactivity not whether or not they are being proactive. Of all the Targon champions, the only one I can say really isn't as proactive is Zoe. She's still kind of proactive. When people throw spears at her she nukes them. But really her central problem in her short story was not that guards were ineffectually trying to kill her. It was that she couldn't teleport away until she delivered a message. And she does not even really try to do that. She just sort of wanders about aimlessly until Twilight deems the message has been sent and she can teleport away.

Similarly, Garen has a goal: protect Demacia and guard the borders against bad people. The same goal that Pantheon has for Targon. The difference is scope and magic powers.

Now on to Atreus, Tryndamere, Garen, and bravery. It is entirely possible that Atreus is as brave as Tryn and Garen. Thing is, the original point wasn't that Atreus is badass its Pantheon is badass. Pantheon is not Atreus. Pantheon is that thing that is controlling Atreus's body.

You can say that, maybe Atreus's soul is still in there influencing things. But that's fanfiction.

The lore directly states that Atreus's soul is in the afterlife. I.e. dead.

The writers have said that Pantheon has complete control of Atreus's body, in direct opposition to Taric who is basically just the old Demacian Taric with a power boost.

You can't put the things that Pantheon is doing on the back of Atreus. Atreus has no say in the matter. Maybe he will in the future. We can hope. I personally will be extremely happy if Atreus finds a way to kill off Pantheon and regains control of his body. But as of now, he doesn't.

Wrathof3001 votes

Awesome video, really helpful and lends some insight. It proves a lot of which we we're already able to deduce; proactivity being influenced by goals, personality and circumstances.

As he explained in the video proactive characters are people who follow their ideals/ passions, in spite of anything that hinders them from attaining their passions. Yes Leona and Panth's reaction to the raiders are both proactive methods, however, it's pointed out later in the video in a extremely similar context, that what Leona is doing; defending the village, while proactive its a tried and failed method, because the raiders will just return (in Panth's lore the whole reason why Atreus begins to suspect the Solari), whereas Pantheon's method; hunting down the enemies to prevent future occurrences, can be seen as more proactive solution, than Leona's defend the village method. It's the last portion of the video at around 11:20, the scene he talks about fits 1:1 with this Leona and Panth comparison we have, opposed to the 'trap' you compare to Leona's method to, because she really did not 'trap' the enemies, she only defended a their next target. A proper example of Leona being 'effectively proactive' would be at the end of her short story when she decides to kill the remaining raiders to prevent them from regrouping, this action is more proactive than her action to defend the village. This is because she was taking action to prevent

The differences between Panth and Garen is the combination of character and circumstance as I already explained.

You make a valid point for explaining why Panth's achievements can't be thrown onto Atreus' résumé, however, Panth is directly linked to Atreus, as Atreus is the backstory of Pantheon's character. Talking strictly about 'Panth being badass' goes back to the fact I found him badass because of his proactivity as a protagonist and which has actual foreshadowing in the lore as being a passion shared by the late Atreus (Pantheon's backstory), opposed to trying to write it off as Panth just wanting to 'stretch his legs' or etc, which is why I choose to make look at the 2 hand in hand.

You opted that Panth could not be badass because he was a 'god' and should insta-win any battle, or that 'the god' himself is not in immediate danger (the latter which is actually speculation as we don't know the specifics of how their fusion works). However I pointed out there is proof that even godlike characters like Sol could suffer detrimental effects if not careful. Even this video starts off talking about Indiana Jones who is super capable, yet becomes an underdog in the story and ultimately failed his goal, because of unforseen circumstances/ inconveniences. So the 'god not badass because outcome is premeditated' argument falls flat as well the 'lack of danger' which we don't have any proof of either.

My reason for why I consider Pantheon a badass remains; he is a demi-god and one of the more proactive champions in the lore. I'm not saying Panth is the most proactive and I don't think someone else being more proactive than him would take away from how badass he is.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

Glad you like it. I really do suggest you watch the full series. It's pretty interesting if you have the time. It's a full semesters worth of classes though.

No, I said the action of the short story wasn't badass because Pantheon has no stakes. He loses to the barbarians, all that happens is he needs to go find a new body to possess. Just being a demigod doesn't quite change the nature of conflict. For example, Ornn. He can be badass, if he goes up against equally (or greater) enemies. We like a hero to be the underdog (gets brought up in a different section of the lectures). A hero that's stronger than their enemies isn't really a story, it's just watching your hero beat up weaklings.

Now to Ornn. Ornn can be badass because we're setting up him facing off against Volibear. That's a battle of equal terrifying strength. But even then, the story really isn't centered on the action of Ornn vs Volibear, or Ornn vs the bear-people. It's framed as watching Ornn grapple with his own depression to actually take action for the first time in centuries.

Or Sandman, if you read the comic. The real villain to pit against Morpheus, the literal God of Dreams is Lucifer himself in a game of wits and consequences that span past what a mortal could possibly perceive.

Pantheon facing against some bandits isn't really engaging (to me) because the more we learn about the Space Parasites the fewer stakes it actually has. If this ever was a battle of near equal stakes, it doesn't matter. Because if the body dies Pantheon can just get a new host. But we pretty quickly learn this isn't even close to a battle of near equal stakes. This is the equivalent of a grown man beating up babies. Sure the babies outnumber him, but that doesn't really matter when you compare their strengths.

Wrathof3001 votes

I don't consider him badass because of the action in his story, like I said there are tons of characters that could replace Panth in this story. What takes center focus for me is proactivity of his character, while not unique, I thinks it's rather impactful to his character.

We like a hero to be the underdog (gets brought up in a different section of the lectures). A hero that's stronger than their enemies isn't really a story, it's just watching your hero beat up weaklings.

If you have not seen the anime One-punchman and if you are interested and ever have time, I would like to recommend you give it a spin. Not to challenge your view (not to support this discussion even), but simply because I suspect its so different to what you might normally take interest in, I think you may enjoy it. It's a story of a superhero so OP he wins his fights in one punch, there are tons of underdog side characters (a lot of which are actually OP by normal standards) and OP villians. It utilizes the example of Indiana Jones' proactivity (minus the underdog part of course) in the Brandon Sanderson, vid. It establishes the main character as someone that just wants to fight at max power once again, and even though the protagonist becomes lazy in his 'search for a worthy opponent', his will is sort of passed onto the audience, since we ultimately want to see him face a challenge. Under normal circumstances it would be boring but it's coupled with some great comedy and is great to kickback and enjoy.

Sorry about that sidetrack. I agree with you that an 'underdog' character is what most people look for in a protagonist. Although it is possible that this particular scenario just doesn't allow most characters to play an underdog role, similarly with MF, how her run in with the other captains, 'forced' her into solving the situation in a manner GP would have. I agree with your Ornn example. I haven't read the Sandman before, but it sounds rather interesting.

The situation you described, is one where the stakes are equal for Pantheon, only if you consider the character as both Atreus and the Aspect. This is a situation has stakes for people like me who are invested in Atreus' role in Panth's character (even though he's dead) although the Aspect gets off 'scotch free'. Since we are looking at the Aspect alone, then a situation of equal stakes would actually be: the Aspect clashing with someone/ something capable of killing/ harming the Aspect itself. This doesn't necessarily mean that particular villain would have to be capable of manhandling the Aspect and all it's 'theorized' army of Aspects of War. There is the option of an 'underdog' villain that kills/ defeats the Aspect through unconventional means, hence we have characters like Aurelion being captured and GP being blow up, because their faults were exploited and made into weakness by those who opposed them.

A situation I would personally consider one of high stakes for the Aspect: on a different planet defending the it from a Void invasion and the Aspect of War for that planet (the host) was killed and the planet destroyed; I personally see this as a loss still even though the Aspect lives, because the stakes are of a different scope; the entire planet and it's people being consumed by the Void.

Edit: When I say scope I don't mean 'because it's bigger', rather, 'what's at stake': their mission/ goal opposed to their life/ well being.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

I actually have seen OPM. It's fairly amusing, in that it creates a few good misdirect jokes. The hundred pushups reveal is pretty funny. I'm usually not a fan of anime, because the stereotypical over-the-top anime reaction I always have found weird as opposed to humorous. This show did give a few chuckles though. But there was only ever one point in the entire series where I actually felt an emotion that wasn't just some mild amusement. And it had nothing to do with the main character. It was when the bicycle guy fought that merman thing. That was it.

Back to Panth. I don't think I really click with the stakes of the fight the same as you because to me Atreus is dead. The lore says he's dead. Therefore he's dead. If Atreus's body dies. It doesn't matter. Atreus is already dead. It only effects Pantheon, since now he has to go looking for a new host, and I don't care about that.

Now the loss of a world is big. But I'd pose a question. As a viewer which affected you more when you saw Star Wars the first time? When Uncle Own and Aunt Beru were burned alive by Stormtroopers, when Obi-wan sacrificed himself to save Luke, or when Alderaan blew up? Because for me, it was definitely the first two. We had never seen anyone from Alderaan. The planet is just a name for the viewer. It demonstrates that the Empire is really bad, and Tarkin is a lying cheating son of a bitch. But as stakes to care about, it doesn't work as well as people and places we relate to.

Though, I will admit. Seeing a godlike being trying to save a planet only to realize that is beyond the scope of his power could be a good story.

But that's not the story we've been given thus far. What we got is, Pantheon beats up people who stand no chance against him. Showing no real intelligence, wit, creativity, it's just a fight scene. And, truth be told not even a particularly good one. Maybe I'm a bit spoiled, but writing fight scenes is hard. And stacked up against Gemmell or Abercombie or even Martin, the Panth vs bandit fight isn't all that exciting. Because writing about who punches or stabs whom doesn't really have an effect. It's not like watching a movie. I can watch John Wick slaughter a room full of assassins, or Max drive through a whirling vortex of death while fighting off a dozen warboys. And it's visually interesting. You don't get that effect with writing. To make a fight scene engaging when you're writing it you need to get invested in the feelings of the character. You need to get wrapped up in their thought process or lack thereof. But Pantheon doesn't have any feellings, at least none we really get to explore in his fight scene. It's just empty words going "hey look how cool this is, isn't this so cool, guys?"

And even if I wasn't diametrically opposed to the direction Riot chose to take Pantheon, that still wouldn't actually be a good story.

Wrathof3001 votes

Right now the Aspects are a mystery, we don't anything in particular about their individual backstory, morals or motivations. Therefore, you can't really right a story with high stakes for them, without revealing too much. Atreus' story adds temporary depth to who Pantheon may interact with and how they will interact. Leona for example, it's a given they will interact in some future story, because they are both Aspects. However, even though it's Panth and not Atreus, there is the possibility of something more coming from their interaction, because of Leona's history with Atreus. This is how I look at Atreus' story as having importance in the character even though he is dead.

I wasn't trying to say that the Aspects losing means the world would end, hence more lives lost. Rather what that means for the Aspects, if the Void consumed everything and the Aspect somehow are still alive then what is the point of protecting these worlds if there is no immediate danger for you. That means there is some importance in the reason why that the Aspects would protect these worlds. The loss of a world may not be personal, but valuable to the Aspects.

I agree with you, this fight scene in particular isn't very immersive in terms of exploring a character. I believe this is because even though the body of his short story is this fight, the important parts are the beginning and the ending of this story. Pantheon intercepts a caravan of mercenaries headed to Mt Targon with ill intent, and Pantheon leaving to meet something or someone on their way to Mt Targon in the form of a comet. It shows that his character isn't someone that stays in one place, he's a roamer dedicated to his duty, these are the parts that show you who Pantheon is as a character.

Valaran Nara2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Warlord Dienekes,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=mdOPf5iN,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-02-12T05:23:13.713+0000)

Garen, places himself in a position of weakness to a witch, and plays by her rules to save a life of someone he barely knows. Putting his life and his very mind at risk to do it. That he comes out victorious is badass. Maybe more than a little stupid. But badass. Pantheon risks nothing but another exposable body on the pile of dead hosts that must litter the galaxy by now. Atreus is a badass, that female that Sol blew up was probably a badass, but Pantheon? That thing controlling them? No, he's a coward.

The moment you said coward, I immediately imagined Pantheon as Aries.

And last I checked, that man was not respected in the least.

Wrathof3001 votes

If I remember correctly Ares was despised because of his bloodlust and violent nature, and took pleasure in conflict and war. What made you remember him when Panth was called a coward?

Valaran Nara2 votes

{quoted}

If I remember correctly Ares was despised because of his bloodlust and violent nature, and took pleasure in conflict and war. What made you remember him when Panth was called a coward?

You can always ask google.

Google, was Ares a coward?

"His name may mean destroyer or avenger. He is associated with the Roman god Mars, although Mars had an agrarian side and enjoyed wider worship. Homer's Ares was bloody and merciless and while god of war, was a coward who cried in pain and when wounded, runs away."

The thing about Ares is that he is a god of war, but one of his personality traits was how cowardly he was. When in battle, you don't run and hide, but he does if he gets hurt. All of the Greek gods had negative character traits about them. Ares bad trait wasn't his bloodlust (he's a god of war, bloodlust isn't inherently bad). It was his cowardice in battle.

Wrathof3001 votes

Pantheons are representations of their people, Ares fleeing from the battlefield could be a representation of the fact that not everyone would have died the glorious death, fighting to their end, there would have been some who fled in fear of death. This would be the serious analysis of what Homer's representation could have meant. Otherwise "Homer's Ares was bloody and merciless and while god of war, was a coward who cried in pain and when wounded, runs away. Homer's interpretation of Ares is likely more for entertainment value than religious accuracy." based on your source it sounds like Homer was just having fun with how he told the story.

Nonetheless he is referred otherwise referred to as a coward, returning to be healed by Zeus whenever he was defeated. He is also portrayed as inferior to Athena a deity of Strategic War, again a representation of the people, that planning beforehand would have been thought of as the smarter/ more reliable way to win a war.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

Dude, do you know who Homer is? Because the Iliad and Odyssey were considered religious/historical texts by the Greeks.

Hell, one of the things we know that the Spartiate were required to do to become a full citizen was memorize the entirety of the Spartan Legal Code and the Iliad.

Like, let's go down the stories of Ares: The Iliad, where he sides with the losing side. Gets beaten by a human. Zeus calls him the worst diety in the pantheon. Hephaestus captures him in a net. And Athena beats him in a display of strength, which was supposed to be his shtick. The Giant Invasion: Ares charges in like an idiot and gets captured in a vase, where he is irrelevant for the rest of the story. The time he raped Poseidon's daughter and the water god literally dragged him before the rest of the gods to stand trial. Other than that, he screws a lot of women, has a lot of children. Many of whom get murdered by better heroes.

Ares was the loser of the Greek Pantheon. Now, his Roman counterpart Mars was actually a respected god. But that's more because Mars was already Rome's patron deity before the two were conflated together.

Wrathof3001 votes

I'm not trying to defend Ares, like I pointed out he was seriously portrayed as a coward, even if I think there is importance in the fact he was portrayed as such. I am pointing out Valaran Nara's poor source of evidence, Wikipedia, in which a line later regarded Homer's representation of Ares as comical.

Warlord Dienekes2 votes

Here was what Ares did. He would find a battlefield pick a side at random and then slaughter everyone within arms reach. Then if anyone hurt him he would run away crying and try to get mommy to beat up the puny humans that were so mean to him.

Zeus literally calls him a coward and his lowest son in the Iliad.

Hell the Spartans, the guys we associate with Ares (despite the fact he most definitely was not their patron god. They had 2, Artemis and Athena. The goddess of the hunt and the smart part of war. Hell they had more temples to Aphrodite the love goddess than they had to Ares) had a prayer that basically translates to:

Dear Ares, we sacrificed this bird for you. Go make our enemies do something stupid.

Warlord Dienekes1 votes

“Ah yes, the Aspect no one likes.” Gotta agree with Taric on that one.

Goldsmith2 votes

Rakan In a carefree badass sort of way. Most of it just comes from his general attitude and the way that he carries himself though.

More from Story, Art, & Sound

Petition to keep the Bilgewater ARAM map in circulation
Story, Art, & Sound154 comments
1,161
votes
[SUPER IMPORTANT PETITION] Change Sion's ban quote...
Story, Art, & Sound54 comments
597
votes
Can we get an Honor animation?! 4 ways to insult an opponent but none to congratulate them.
Story, Art, & Sound202 comments
578
votes
Petition to make Rengar wiggle his butt when there's a pounce-able target near his bush
Story, Art, & Sound140 comments
476
votes
About this years harrowing...
Story, Art, & Sound357 comments
459
votes
RIOT, please postpone Blood Moon Diana and make it into a Legendary skin.
Story, Art, & Sound236 comments
423
votes

More by Wrathof300

@Riot: Could we get Galio on the Map?
Story, Art, & Sound28 comments
22
votes
Champions based on sub-factions
Story, Art, & Sound12 comments
14
votes
Rhaast Theory and Darkin Concept
Story, Art, & Sound7 comments
11
votes
Who would fall prey to the Agony's embrace?
Story, Art, & Sound38 comments
11
votes
Kayle and Morgana: Targon and Demacia
Story, Art, & Sound29 comments
10
votes
Kayle x Pantheon
Story, Art, & Sound3 comments
9
votes